Best Match Discussion - March 7

As you likely know, we made some adjustments that hit the site early Sunday, intended to place new files higher in the search results, and hold their place longer so they have a chance to prove themselves. Based on the forum, it sounds like the change was favorable from a contributor standpoint.

However, we have seen an indication via site metrics that, since the change, customers are having a harder time finding content to use. So, I need to back off a bit on the adjustments I made, trying to find a better balance so new images still get a chance, but customers aren’t hindered from finding files to use. That change will go into effect early tomorrow (Friday).

In the spirit of transparency, I want to state out loud that my goal is not to place brand new files on the first page of search results, because their relevance to the search is not yet known. I’m fine with new files on the second page, but the first page needs to be crazy relevant to the search, because that drives people further into the site. Recency and overall popularity would be secondary factors in determining what goes on the first page, but relevancy to the search should be primary there.

With that in mind, the next changes I want to make to Best Match are about improving relevancy on the first page. Many of you have pointed out that the top results are currently too dominated by high downloads, which are image-level, not keyword-level, and therefore often not highly relevant to the search. I don’t have a timeframe for those changes yet, but we are working on them.

This highlights once again that we really could do with some sort of initial keyword weighting, provided by the contributor. Putting new files that have no keyword weighting high up in search results means that there can be a lot of irrelevancy.

an indication via site metrics that, since the change, customers are having a harder time finding content to use.

I have a question Maybe it is not a bad but good sign? if I perform a search and see lot of useful content, I want to see more and better, it's stimul to take more time to search (better selection = hard choise)? - but if I receive bad result, I buy somethings fast because i need somethings, but next time i will go to other place...

For illustrations, cheaper files seem to get a similar boost to expensive files. Cheaper ones have been slowly getting nearer the front for a long time. That costs us all money- if you could fix that aswell it'd be great

Good stuff. FTIW, last week saw my port perform as it was doing 2 years ago, buyers seemed to be finding and buying files again. This all changed last Sunday, which coincides with your comments Fairy. For me at least, last week was the sweet spot in the BM.

As you likely know, we made some adjustments that hit the site early Sunday, intended to place new files higher in the search results, and hold their place longer so they have a chance to prove themselves. Based on the forum, it sounds like the change was favorable from a contributor standpoint.

Thanks for the update.I was not happy with the change.My good Febuary has went up in smoke this week !

Why do you and the team need to use BM to highlight new work when the buyers have 'new' in the drop down sort .

I would be careful to gauge how the contributor base reacts to anything these days as the majority do not even read or venture into the forum.It has little to do with the business of producing files for the microstock industry.

Posted By SearchFairy:
Many of you have pointed out that the top results are currently too dominated by high downloads, which are image-level, not keyword-level, and therefore often not highly relevant to the search.

If keyword relevancy is linked to views, and views are screwed, aren't you playing on a wonky playing field?

It would be interesting to know if getting the views algorithm to work as it did pre-last September is somewhere on the list of priorities? Because, at the moment, 'views' indicate very little. Doesn't this have an impact on keyword relevancy?